From Sea To Shining Sea

This site is dedicated to providing moderate-right opinions, and information and articles that counter some of the nonsense being inculcated in our young people by public schools and by many colleges and universities. It rejects multiculturalism, embraces the melting pot and celebrates the idea of America. *Vi er all Dansk nu.*

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Extent of the US Betrayal of Israel, Part I

Few Americans are aware of the pressure
the Obama administration is placing on Israel to, in effect, commit
national suicide in its conflict with the terrorist regime in Gaza.
Since the US has, up until now, given Israel great support
economically and with munitions and military hardware, we have
considerable influence on that nation, the only one in the Middle
East that stands for and practices western principles of universal
human rights.

The following column by Caroline
Glick, an Israeli, details the extent of our deceit. The
article is a long one, so I am presenting it in two parts. Go to the
link to read it all, or see part II tomorrow.

Hamas’s war with Israel is not a stand-alone event. It is
happening in the context of the vast changes that are casting asunder
old patterns of behavior and strategic understandings as actors in
the region begin to reassess the threats they face.

Hamas was once funded by Saudi Arabia and enabled by Egypt. Now
the regimes of these countries view it as part of a larger axis of
Sunni jihad that threatens not only Israel, but them.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and its state sponsors Qatar and
Turkey, are the key members of this alliance structure. Without their
support Hamas would have gone down with the Muslim Brotherhood regime
in Egypt last summer. As it stands, all view Hamas’s war with
Israel as a means of reinstating the Brotherhood to power in that
country.

To achieve a Hamas victory, Turkey, Qatar and the Muslim
Brotherhood are using Western support for Hamas against Israel. If
the US and the EU are able to coerce Egypt and Israel to open their
borders with Gaza, then the Western powers will hand the jihadist
axis a strategic victory.

The implications of such a victory would be dire.

Hamas is ideologically indistinguishable from Islamic State. Like
Islamic State, Hamas has developed mass slaughter and psychological
terrorization as the primary tools in its military doctrine. If the
US and the EU force Israel and Egypt to open Gaza’s borders, they
will enable Hamas to achieve strategic and political stability in
Gaza. As a consequence, a post-war Gaza will quickly become a local
version of Islamic State-controlled Mosul.

In the first instance, such a development will render life in
southern Israel too imperiled to sustain. The Western Negev, and
perhaps Beersheba, Ashkelon and Ashdod, will become uninhabitable.

Then there is Judea and Samaria. If, as the US demands, Israel
allows Gaza to reconnect with Judea and Samaria, in short order Hamas
will dominate the areas. Militarily, the transfer of even a few of
the thousands of rocket-propelled grenades Hamas has in Gaza will
imperil military forces and civilians alike.

IDF armored vehicles and armored civilian buses will be blown to
smithereens.

Whereas operating from Gaza, Hamas needed the assistance of the
Obama administration and the Federal Aviation Administration to shut
down Ben-Gurion Airport, from Judea and Samaria, all Hamas would
require are a couple of hand-held mortars.

Jordan will also be directly threatened.

From Egypt’s perspective, a Hamas victory in the war with Israel
that connects Gaza to Sinai will strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood
and its Islamic State and other allies. Such a development represents
a critical threat to the regime.

And this brings us to Islamic State itself. It couldn’t have
grown to its current monstrous proportions without the support of
Qatar and Turkey.

Islamic State is obviously interested in expanding its conquests.
Since it views itself as a state, its next move must be one that
enables it to take over a national economy. The raid on Mosul’s
central bank will not suffice to finance its operations for very
long.

At this point, Islamic State wishes to avoid an all-out
confrontation with Iran, so moving into southern Iraq is probably not
in the cards. US forces in Kuwait, and the strength and unity of
purpose of the Jordanian military, probably take both kingdoms off
Islamic State’s chopping block for now.

This leaves Saudi Arabia, or parts of it, as a likely next target
for Islamic State expansion.

Islamic State’s current operations in Lebanon, which threaten
the Saudi-supported regime there, indicate that Lebanon, at a
minimum, is also at grave risk.

Then there is Iran. Iran is not a member of the Sunni jihadist
axis. But when it comes to Israel and the non-jihadist regimes, it
has cooperated with it.

Iran has funded, trained and armed Hamas for the past decade. It
views Hamas’s war with Israel in the same light as it viewed its
Lebanese proxy Hezbollah’s war with Israel eight years ago.

Both in Iraq and Syria, Iran and Islamic State have shown little
interest in making one another their primary target. Turkey and Qatar
have often served as Iran’s supporters in the Sunni world.

This is the context in which Israel is fighting its war with
Hamas. And due to this context, two interrelated strategically
significant events have occurred since the war began.

The first relates to the US.The Obama administration’s decision to side with the members of
the jihadist axis against Israel by adopting their demand to open
Gaza’s borders with Israel and Egypt has served as the final nail
in the coffin of America’s strategic credibility among its
traditional regional allies.As the US has stood with Hamas, it has also maintained its pursuit
of a nuclear deal with Iran. The US’s position in these talks is to
enable the mullocracy to follow North Korea’s path to a nuclear
arsenal. The non-jihadist Sunni states share Israel’s conviction
that they cannot survive a nuclear armed Iran.Finally, President Barack Obama’s refusal to date to take
offensive action to destroy Islamic State in Iraq and Syria
demonstrates to Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states that under
Obama, the US would rather allow Islamic State to expand into their
territory and destroy them than return US military forces to Iraq.

In other words, Obama’s pro-Hamas-, pro-Iran- and pro-Muslim
Brotherhood-axis policies, along with his refusal to date to take
effective action in Iraq and Syria to obliterate Islamic State, have
convinced the US’s traditional allies that for the next
two-and-a-half years, not only can they not rely on the US, they
cannot discount the possibility of the US taking actions that harm
them.

It is in the face of the US’s shift of allegiances under Obama
that the non-jihadist Sunni regimes have begun to reevaluate their
ties to Israel. Until the Obama presidency, the Saudis and Egyptians
felt secure in their alliance with the US. Consequently, they never
felt it necessary or even desirable to consider Israel as a strategic
partner.

Under the US’s strategic protection, the traditional Sunni
regimes had the luxury of maintaining their support for Palestinian
terrorists and rejecting the notion of strategic cooperation with
Israel, whether against Iran, al-Qaida or any other common foe.

So sequestered by the US, Israel became convinced that the only
way it could enjoy any benefit from its shared strategic interests
with its neighbors was by first bowing to the US’s long-held
obsession with strengthening the PLO. This has involved surrendering
land, political legitimacy and money to the terror group still
committed to Israel’s destruction.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Current State of Obamacare Issues

So many disasters are occurring both at
home and in the outside world (Ferguson, IRS, Illegals swamping the
border, Muslim terrorism and butchery, Jihadist advances throughout
the Middle East, ebola); the issues associated with Obamacare have
been swept off the front page.

This is a report listing the current
state of those issues, which still need to be exploited by
Republicans in the election this year.

1. Big premium hikes are slated for 2015.
Because the country erupted in outrage over the millions of policies
cancelled under Obamacare, which made a lie of the president’s
vow, “If you like your insurance you can keep it,” the White
House reversed course and allowed people to maintain existing
coverage. As a result, the Obamacare exchanges were starved of the
healthier people needed to pay for the sick and poor previously
without insurance. Insurers are now planning
to raise premiums.

According to PwC
Health Research Institute, the average premium increase request
for 2105 in North Carolina is 10.8 percent; in Iowa the hike is 11.5
percent. Many in Louisiana are looking at almost a 20 percent
increase, and in Arkansas nearly 12 percent. That’s big,
unpleasant news for Democrats.

2. Critics claim the Obama administration is fudging the ACA
enrollment numbers. The White House trumpeted that 8 million
Americans had signed up for Obamacare, but that total has been
shrinking. Aetna, one of the program’s biggest players, reports
that of their 720,000 enrollees, only about 600,000 are paying for
their coverage, a number they expect will drop
to about 500,000 by year-end. Other insurers indicate fall-off
as well.

3. People are angry about the narrower choices of doctors and
hospitalsavailable to them. In New Hampshire,
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield was the sole insurer participating
in the marketplace; it eliminated
10 of the state’s 26 hospitals from its network. According to
Politico, such is the uproar about shrinking choices that
“since the beginning of 2013, more than 70
bills have been introduced in 22 states to clarify the network
rules, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.”
In California, more than one group has sued Anthem Blue Cross,
charging that the insurer misrepresented the scope of its doctor
network
.Related:
Up to 300,000 Could Lose Obamacare on Federal Exchange4. The ACA was constructed incompetently. The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently ruled illegal the federal
subsidies paid to Obamacare enrollees in states that have not set up
their own exchanges -- a stark reminder of how badly the healthcare
bill was implemented. This and other unintended consequences are
excellent arguments for significantly overhauling the ACA – an
undertaking that might be possible under a Republican Senate but
that has little or no hope otherwise.

5. Obamacare highlights the president’s imperial tendencies.
Mr. Obama has single-handedly changed the ACA some 24 times,
delaying important provisions such as the employer and individual
mandates. The president has rigged the rollout of the ACA to
political advantage, putting off the most painful aspects of the
bill and front-loading the goodies. Republicans should remind voters
we have yet to encounter, for instance, the 40
percent Cadillac tax, which has been pushed back until 2018, but
which is expected to raise as much as $214 billion by 2023.

6. Obamacare undermines job creation. The ACA has been the
most important of a number of White House policies that have
discouraged job creation at a time when the country is struggling to
put people back to work. At last tally, there were 92 million
adult Americans who are not working (like stay-at-home moms), are
unemployed, retired or disabled. The workforce participation rate is
at a decades-long low. This is unsustainable, and Obamacare is not
helping. Companies have limited their hiring and also the number of
hours their employers work because of the bill and have faced
increased uncertainty. Meanwhile, because of the ACA, Americans no
longer need to work to get health benefits – maybe a good thing
for individuals, but not for a country whose safety net must be
funded by an ever-greater workforce.

In short, there’s still meat on the bones of the Obamacare
carcass; Republicans running for office should get out their knives
and forks.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Ben Stein on President Obama

Moral Decency in Disintegration

A President who at heart hates America.

By Ben Stein – 8.16.14

Friday
A trip up to the charming town of
Sandpoint. It went well except that our flight from SEA to Spokane
was postponed for an hour. We took an earlier flight but then my
wife’s luggage was not in Spokane. We had to wait two hours for
that. We passed the time at a fine local Spokane restaurant called
the Rusty Moose. Good food, good service.

We sat at the bar and next to us were two soldiers. One of them
was quiet. The other was talkative. He wanted to know if I thought
there was much of a future for civilization.

“We Americans come from the Enlightenment,” he said. “But
how many other countries have the values of respect for law, respect
for human dignity, respect for the individual that we have?”

“Maybe Israel and the UK,” I said.

“Right,” said the soldier. “That was my count, too.”

This is a conversation I have been having often. People just come
up to me and ask me if I think civilization has a future, if I think
human decency has a future.

I blame Mr. Obama and his wicked clique for this. Despite an
enormous edge in wealth, military might, and moral power, the United
States has abandoned the field to the terrorists and bullies and
killers and enslavers of women.

A few days ago, Mr. Obama said we were going to save the Yazidis
trapped in the middle of ISIS control. He did almost nothing. Today,
ISIS murdered roughly 100 Yazidis because they would not convert to
Islam (the religion of peace). In retaliation, Mr Obama sent two
drones to blow up two ISIS pickup trucks. This is just great. The
U.S. spends roughly $620 billion per year on defense. With a genocide
looming, Mr. Obama can muster up the strength to send out two drones
to destroy two pickup trucks.

This is pitiful. Beyond pitiful. In this incident, we can see that
Barack Obama is just too paralyzed by his hatred of America and
European civilization to bestir himself to help that civilization’s
values. Obama is another Angry Black Man, better covered up than
most, but not a fan of American values of compassion and caring. He
is too angry to be compassionate or empathetic. He has to worry about
himself and Michelle.

That means no helping the poor Nigerians against Boko Haram
rapists. No helping of any kind in Arab Africa, which has been led by
Arab Spring into a deep hell of violence and lawlessness. No helping
the Ukrainians as they struggle against their violent neighbor. It
means contempt for the only country in the world with its existence
at stake every day — Israel — which is still the most civilized
country in the world east of Anglia.

Mr. Obama sides with the killers and the fanatics almost every
time by not helping the victims of these people.

The result? The world is aflame and Mr. Obama is playing golf and
the flames get higher. The uber-genius Mark Steyn wrote about America
Alone. It’s worse than that. It’s America alone with a man
who in his heart hates America the way his Kenyan father hated the
British (a theory I learned about from the very smart Dinesh
D’Souza).

As the crazies of the world circle around, our leader walks away
from responsibility, plays golf with plutocrats on Martha’s
Vineyard, and gets some satisfaction in seeing moral decency in
disintegration worldwide.

This is a terrifying time. I’m glad I am in Sandpoint, where I
feel safe even if I am not.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Re Rick Perry - Let's Turn the Tables

I
was not much impressedby
Rick Perry during the 2012 campaign, but when he recently sent the
National Guard to the Texas border, he got my vote for 2016. Just as
the Democrats have destroyed with personal attacks supported by an hysterical and corrupt media other Republicans
they consider powerful adversaries (Palin, Christie, Judge Bork, Tom Delay to name
just a few), they are now out to 'get' Perry.

Rosemary Lehmberg, the Democratic district attorney in Travis
County, Texas, spent three weeks in jail last year for drunken
driving, prompting Republican Governor Rick Perry to call on her to
resign. She refused -- and now her supporters hope to have the last
laugh by sending Perry away for a lot longer. The criminal case
against him is a farce and should be dismissed faster than prairie
fire with a tail wind.

Lehmberg’s run-in
with the law drew public attention not only because she had an open
bottle of vodka in her car and a blood-alcohol level three times the
legal limit, but also because a police video exposed her acting
belligerently toward the officers. The judge in the case called her
behavior “deplorable.” Since Perry misses few opportunities to
engage in partisan grandstanding,
he vowed to veto funding for the district attorney’s public
integrity unit unless she resigned. Perry argued that, as a result of
her conduct, Lehmberg was not fit to oversee the unit, which
investigates possible ethics violations.

Partisan motivations aside, it was fair to call her judgment into
question -- and Perry followed through on his vow with a line-item
veto. Round one to the Republicans.

Next, a liberal advocacy group, Texans for Public Justice,
persuaded a judge to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate
whether Perry’s veto threat constituted an abuse of power. Proving
the legal maxim that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict
a ham sandwich, Perry now faces two indictments for abusing the
powers of his office. One of them rests on a Texas law that forbids
elected officials to misuse “government property, services or
personnel" -- which is clearly not what happened here. The
second prohibits officials from engaging in coercion, a crime that is
akin to bribery. Few legal observers give the prosecution much chance
for success in court. But conviction isn't the goal here. Harassment
and humiliation are. Soon, Perry will have to turn himself in to
police. Round two to the Democrats.

This would be ordinary partisan tit for tat, except that a law
enforcement office is involved. Political disputes should be resolved
in political venues -- legislative bodies and public debates -- not
in criminal courts. If Perry’s veto is an abuse of power, then the
state legislature could impeach him, as it did Texas
Governor James “Pa” Ferguson nearly 100 years ago.
Impeachment, however, is entirely unnecessary: The legislature could
simply vote to override Perry’s line-item veto. For failing to do
so, should the entire legislature be indicted?

Of course not. Perry is guilty of partisan behavior, not felonious
conduct. There's been no evidence to support the claim that he vetoed
the funds to prevent the public integrity unit from investigating
allegations of impropriety by the state’s Cancer Prevention and
Research Center.

Much of the commentary following the indictment has involved
speculation about how much it will damage Perry’s presidential
aspirations. Some liberal pundits seem gleeful.
Don’t be fooled. This is more likely to rally Republicans to
Perry’s side -- earning him new supporters and donors -- and to
make Texas Democrats look as craven as the Republicans who are
seeking to impeach President Barack Obama. And that will mean giving
back round two. .

Friday, August 15, 2014

Another Instance of Obama's Duplicity on Israel

A new Wall Street Journalreport
reveals that President Barack Obama's administration blocked a
shipment of missiles to Israel in late July and tightened additional
weapons shipment procedures to Israel, revealing increasing tensions
between the two governments.

The U.S. decision to tighten arms transfers to Israel comes as the
UK threatens similar actions. On Tuesday, the British government
announced the suspension of 12 arms export licenses to Israel if
fighting resumed in Gaza.

The Wednesday night report cites officials in the Obama
administration who say Israel had requested a large number of
Hellfire missiles directly through military-to-military channels, for
which no additional administration approvals are required. An initial
batch of the missiles was about to be shipped, according to sources
in Israel and the U.S. Congress.At that point, the administration stepped in and put the transfer
on hold. Top White House officials instructed various U.S. military
agencies to consult with the U.S. State Department before approving
any additional arms requests from Israel.The decision to clamp down on future transfers was the equivalent
of "the United States saying 'the buck stops here. Wait a
second. …It's not OK anymore,'" said one official. An Israeli defense official confirmed the reports, saying, "The
U.S. delayed a shipment of Hellfire missiles to the Israeli air
force" in the face of “national tension" with Israel.Obama has not been on the same page as Israel in terms of Israel’s
operation in Gaza, making various attempts to press Israel into
accepting a truce with Hamas, even under terms unpalatable to the
Israeli government.

After one instance where America allegedly pressured Israel into a
ceasefire that was violated within 90 minutes by a Hamas attack which
killed several Israeli soldiers, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
reportedly told the administration "not to ever second guess me
again."

According to U.S. officials cited in The Wall Street
Journal report, a Wednesday night phone call between Obama
and Netanyahu was "particularly combative."

A turning point appeared to be Israel’s July 30 IDF strike on
terrorists adjacent to a UN school, which the U.S. slammed as
“disgraceful.”

In response, the IDF confirmed it targeted Islamic Jihad
terrorists in the vicinity of the school and provided video evidence
that Hamas had fired rockets from inside schools.

The U.S. administration has since required White House and State
Department approval for even routine munitions requests by Israel,
officials say.

Instead of being handled as a military-to-military matter, each
case is now subject to review, slowing the approval process--and
signaling to Israel that military assistance once taken for granted
is now under closer scrutiny.

Reaction from HotAir:If the standard review process was followed, then why was the
White House “caught off guard”? Isn’t it incumbent on the Obama
administration to know how the sale and transfer process works?
Israel had conducted a ground war — much to the chagrin of
Obama and his “policymakers” — for a few weeks. Why wouldn’t
anyone have expected Israel to replenish its supplies? Surely there
are a few people who may have at least watched Patton
if not studied Clausewitz in this administration. Resupply is a basic
function for any army at war.Surprise in this case springs from willful ignorance, as Jeff
Dunetz notes. On Morning Joe today, Jim
Miklaszewski told Joe Scarborough that the stockpiles in Israel are
routinely tapped for resupply, and that the Pentagon knew all about
it at the time — even discussing it openly with the press when the
transfer occurred. Miklaszewski scoffed at the notion that the White
House would have been caught off-guard about it unless they wanted
some plausible deniability.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

American Army to Revert to 1940 Size

I suppose it should not surprise me that our corrupt mass media
would be so silent about the plan that President Obama and Secretary
of Defense Hagel have hatched to reduce our armed forces to their
lowest level since before World War II. I think this plan is
reckless and greatly endangers our security at a time that the world
is falling apart. Is this the culmination of Obama's grand plan? Will our soldiers also train with wooden, fake rifles as in 1940?

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary
Chuck
Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest
force since before the World
War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack
jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first
Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing
adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.

The proposal, released on Monday, takes into account the fiscal
reality of government austerity and the political reality of a
president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A
result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating
any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.

Officials who saw an early draft
of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater
risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two
large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take
longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties.
Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism
by adversaries.

“You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you
can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no
large land war,” a senior Pentagon official said.

Outlines of some of the budget initiatives, which are subject to
congressional approval, have surfaced, an indication that even in
advance of its release the budget is certain to come under political
attack.

For example, some members of Congress, given advance notice of
plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the
move, and the National Guard Association, an advocacy group for those
part-time military personnel, is circulating talking points urging
Congress to reject anticipated cuts. State governors are certain to
weigh in, as well. And defense-industry officials and members of
Congress in those port communities can be expected to oppose any
initiatives to slow Navy shipbuilding.

Even so, officials said that despite budget reductions, the
military would have the money to remain the most capable in the world
and that Mr. Hagel’s proposals have the endorsement of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. Money saved by reducing the number of personnel,
they said, would assure that those remaining in uniform would be well
trained and supplied with the best weaponry.

The new American way of war will be underscored in Mr. Hagel’s
budget, which protects money for Special Operations forces and
cyberwarfare.
And in an indication of the priority given to overseas military
presence that does not require a land force, the proposal will — at
least for one year — maintain the current number of aircraft
carriers at 11.

Over all, Mr. Hagel’s proposal, the officials said, is designed
to allow the American military to fulfill President
Obama’s national security directives: to defend American
territory and the nation’s interests overseas and to deter
aggression — and to win decisively if again ordered to war.

“We’re still going to have a
very significant-sized Army,” the official said. “But it’s
going to be agile. It will be capable. It will be modern. It will be
trained.”

Mr. Hagel’s plan would most significantly reshape America’s
land forces — active-duty soldiers as well as those in the National
Guard and Reserve.

The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the
casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to
490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s
proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between
440,000 and 450,000.

That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For
years, and especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that
it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously —
say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy
documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively
win one conflict while holding off an adversary’s aspirations in a
second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to
win there." New York Times

Monday, August 11, 2014

Two Obvious Liars

Lie Number 1

President Obama refused to take responsibility for the
lack of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying that American soldiers had to
pull out due to political pressure from Iraqi leaders.

“This issue keeps on coming up as if this was my
decision,” Obama retorted when asked if he had any second thoughts,
in light of the terrorist force taking over regions of Iraq, about
having pulled all American troops out of the country. “The reason
that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because a majority
of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there and politically they could
not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our
troops in Iraq,” he said.

Lie Number 2

On Sunday, The Atlantic came out with an
interview of Hillary Clinton which was conducted by Jeffrey
Goldberg.

The highlights of the interview was Hillary's criticism of the
Obama Administration's failure to back the Syrian rebels early on and
its failure to prevent the rise of ISIS in Iraq and also gave a
staunch defense of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
Operation Protective Edge in Gaza.

While Hillary's critique of the Obama Administration is spot on it
does lack a certain credibility. It's not as if she is a detached
observer. As President Obama's Secretary of State for four years, she
was instrumental in the development of very policies she now sees fit
to criticize. Let us not forget that it was Hillary who once called
Bashar Assad a reformer and ripped Netanyahu every way possible. She
also once stated
that Israel lacked "empathy" and "generosity"
towards the Palestinians.

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Muslims in America and Everywhere

This is a reprint of an article I posted in 2008. Thanks to Ivan for e-mailing me the statistics shown in the book excerpted below, and reminding me of this article. Nothing has changed. Muslim jihadists are still butchering innocents; Palestinians are still teaching their children that Jews drink Arab blood and are still trying to kill all Jews; Muslims come to America to escape their culture - then promptly try to impose their culture on the rest of us.

Although most of the world’s Muslims are peaceful people who want the same things for their children as do we, nevertheless, Muslim history cannot be ignored or denied (as American liberals seem to do), and it is clear that 1. Islam is a political movement as much as it is a religion – and must be dealt with as such, and 2. We must be vigilant in not allowing the Muslim population to grow, nor allow mosques and schools spreading hate to exist in America.

The following excerpt from Dr. Hammond's book shows the extent of the problem, and that it must be dealt with if we are to keep the freedoms so many Americans died to win for us and to keep for us.

“Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious rights.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious rights, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Unfortunately, peace in never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.”

Wednesday, August 06, 2014

The Summer of 2006 (A Reprint)

Many media outlets, including the NY Times, Washington Post, AP, and Reuters, report the Gaza incursion by Israel as if it's new news, and as if the Israelis should just stand and take it. There is both ancient history and modern history to consider. Below is a reprint of an earlier blog entry of mine that refers to some recent events, For some long-term history, please go to Palestine, Israel and its Peoples and Borders

Please also understand that if Israel does not shut down the ability of Hamas to engage in rocket attacks, the advancements in rocket science will surely overwhelm the defense systems of the Israelis in the near future, and new missiles supplied by Hezbollah (Iran) will start killing thousands of them.Remembering the Summer of 2006

"On July 12th, 2006, Hezbollah guerillas killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another two, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. All the while Hezbollah continued to launch rockets at civilian targets in Northern Israel. These acts against Israel’s sovereignty sparked Israel's defensive measures and the subsequent escalation of the conflict. In the end, as a direct consequence of Hezbollah’s belligerence, more than 1,000 Lebanese and Israeli civilians lay dead and the infrastructure of Lebanon lay in ruins." From Sea to Shining Sea 10/9/06

"At a time when history is hardly being taught anymore, and journalists lie, it must be hard for our young people to understand who the good guys are in the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis in what was called Palestine. In a land where both Jews and Arabs have dwelt and fought one another for ages, it was Solomon-like for the United Nations to divide the land between them in 1947 – yes, 1947, more than 60 years ago. Neither the Arabs in surrounding countries nor the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians would accept that decision, and the Palestinians moved out, confident that they could soon move back and take over all the land; while Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen attacked the Israelis.

Four times since 1948 the Arab countries have attacked Israel with the objective of exterminating every Jew who lived there. The result of these wars was defeat and humiliation for the Arabs and more-defensible borders for the Israelis.

Egypt signed a peace agreement with Israel (for which Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Islamic fundamentalists), and, over the years, many times other countries, mostly the U.S.A., have tried to broker a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The last, significant negotiation, called the Oslo Accords, was brokered between President Clinton, the Palestinian leader, PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat, and the Israeli Premier,Yitzhak Rabin. Many Israelis objected to the terms of this agreement and replaced Rabin, while the Palestinians reacted by launching the “Intifada”, a never-ending state of terrorism against the Israelis, and the Oslo Accords came to naught.

Due to the rampant anti-Semitism that exists in much of the world, Israel has often been portrayed as the monster in the conflict. When Hezbollah attacked Israel in the summer of 2006, both the Associated Press and Reuters were caught doctoring photographs and filing false reports (remember Cana) that condemned Israel unfairly." From Sea to Shining Sea 7/19/2008

2009 Update

Nothing ever changes. No tears should be shed for Israeli women and children who live under the daily threat of constant bombardment from rockets launched from Gaza or from death by being blown up by Palestinian terrorists from a bomb set in a busy store or on a bus. Here is today’s attempt by the New York Times to raise anger against Israel and enlist sympathy for the murderers. Give me a break!

"GAZA — A dentist stood at the bed of a doctor, his good friend Ehab Madhoun, 32, who had just died, his shrapnel-pitted body wrapped in a white shroud.

The day before, Dr. Madhoun, a general practitioner, was in an ambulance responding to an Israeli strike at the Jabalya refugee camp in northern Gaza. Another missile hit the ambulance. The driver, Muhammad Abu Hasira, died instantly. Dr. Madhoun lingered for a day, dying of his wounds on Wednesday in the intensive care unit of Shifa Hospital, where hundreds of people have been brought since Israel began its heaviest assault on Gaza in three decades.

The dentist cried.

“He was just doing his work,” said the dentist, who would not give his name. “He’s a doctor, and I can’t understand why Israel would hit an ambulance. They can tell from the cameras it’s an ambulance.”

It has always been this way, over years of conflict here, that civilians are killed in the densely populated Gaza Strip when Israel stages military operations it says are essential for its security. But five days of Israeli airstrikes have surpassed past operations in scale and intensity; the long-distance bombardment of the Hamas-controlled territory has, however well aimed at those suspected of being militants, splintered families and shattered homes in one of the most densely populated places on Earth." New York Times

Tuesday, August 05, 2014

The Unbelievable Gaza Tunnel Plan

We have been seeing bits and pieces of the tunnels that Israel set out to destroy in the Gaza strip, but few know the extent of the plan by Hamas to destroy Israel by means of these tunnels, and few know of their massive extent and the planning, the organization or the billions of dollars expended here. The only other undertaking that comes close was the Nazi attempt to kill all the Jews in hundreds of concentration camps and death chambers.By Mordechai Ben-Menachem

Multiple media outlets report that Hamas’s offensive tunnel network – now known to have been composed of over forty attack tunnels dug underneath Israel’s border with the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip – was set to be activated during the Jewish High Holidays (September 24th) as a mass terror attack.

The attack was meant to generate as many as ten thousand casualties, men, women and particularly children and hundreds of captives. Explosives were particularly placed underneath kindergartens to make certain that these “institutions” would be the first struck, even before anything else.

The IDF recently published the below map showing that tunnels were created in pairs, to empty out on both sides of nearby communities. The known cost of the infrastructure – each tunnel costs upward of some $1 million – clearly shows that Hamas was planning a coordinated mega-attack. It must be understood that use of even one tunnel would inevitably trigger Israeli retaliation against the entire network.

A map of a small portion of the tunnels meant to be used 9 weeks from now.

Revelations regarding the planned tunnel attack magnitude played a decisive role in the Israeli government’s rejection of a ceasefire proposed late Friday by Secretary of State John Kerry.

Unbelievably, Kerry actually proposed in his latest “cease-fire proposal” – none of which have been honored by Hamas so far – that Israel refrains from degrading remaining attack tunnels. This mind-boggling concept would necessarily be rejected by any sane government, of any country.

Israeli security sources, citing information acquired in interrogations of captured brigands, described a scenario under which hundreds of heavily armed Hamas fighters would have spilled out into Israel in the dead of night and within 10 minutes been positioned to infiltrate essentially all Israeli communities surrounding the Gaza Strip. Waiting then in hiding until schools and kindergartens were occupied, the terrorists would then attempt to kill the children first, and then kill and kidnap as many Israelis as possible. The plot was set to take place during Jewish New Year, on September 24.by Taboola

“It’s like the Underground, the Metro or the Subway,” Israeli military spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said. “These tunnels are all connected. I would describe it as Lower Gaza.”

Israeli Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said, “A whole city of terror tunnels has been found. Without the ground operation, we would have woken up one day to an Israeli 9/11.”

Except, the actual objective was to be five times 9/11.

This picture shows clearly the width of one of the tunnels, sufficient for wheeled vehicles to transverse it. Hamas did not build a “subway” system for Gaza residents. They built an infrastructure for one purpose, and one only, an industry of death.

Israeli military officials reported that the tunnels are stocked with tranquilizers, handcuffs, syringes, ropes and other materials used for subduing abductees, civilians and soldiers. The tunnels also had fantastic quantities of explosives and additional military materiel meant to be used in the up-coming mega attack. Much of these explosives had already been placed underneath Israeli kindergartens. Some of these tunnels were as deep as 30 meters underground.

Fantastic quantities of explosives were stored in every tunnel, meant to be used in a mega-attack on civilian communities and infrastructure.

Sources say the Gaza Strip war, Operation Protective Edge, could serve as a prelude for a more extensive underground war with the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah. Perhaps, not ‘just’ in the Middle East.

The tunnels inside Gaza and under the Israeli border are not a secret project Hamas ran under the noses of Israel and the Palestinian public. Everyone in Gaza, knew that beneath Gaza, the City and all of its environs, a network of tunnels was being dug over the past five years, with an investment of tens of millions of dollars. Yet no one in Israel, public or military, was prepared for the scope of the tunnels – the danger that became clear in the past week or two.

Senior Hamas operatives show off their offensive tunnels to their spouses. Unbelievably, this is actually a picture of a Marriage taking place in the ‘place of death’.

In order to create this monstrosity, Hamas needed significant professional help; and this help had to have come from a large organization or state entity. This is not just the monetary aid it received from Qatar, America’s ally. This is professional guidance for the performance of such an underground feat. Perhaps Hamas could have used experts from the tunnels dug at Rafah under the Gaza-Egypt border, but those were significantly simpler, and did not demand any extraordinary investment or effort.

A Hamas operative climbing upward in a pier of one of the major tunnels. Notice the work on the sides of the tunnel.

Who supplied these quantities of material? Who planned what would be needed? How did Hamas acquire thousands of ampoules of tranquilizer, syringes and other, additional drugs to be used? These are far beyond the quantities and variety of what is needed by any civilian medical service.

How was all this brought in to the Gaza Strip? The logistics of this planned attack are the work of a well-organised military, not that of a militia or club. This was no amateur plan.

Observers note that attack scenarios lined up with recently revealed data about the sophistication, scope and nature of the offensive tunnel network. As previously reported here, this sophistication and know-how is being copied right now by Mexico-based Hezbollah agents along the Southern US border. Tunnels in Southern Lebanon, as in South US, are significantly more difficult to detect than those in the sandy terrain of the Gaza Strip.

“Hamas planned these tunnels for years, and planned to use them to kidnap soldiers,” Israeli military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mordechai Almoz said. “[Now] they see the tunnels collapsing one after the other.” For the last two years, the Israeli army has sought to develop skills and equipment to fight in enemy tunnels and bunkers. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used tunnels to operate command and control, to infiltrate Israel and abduct soldiers, to fire rockets and to conceal fighters amid invasion of the Gaza Strip.

———-

Mordechai Ben-Menachem is a former researcher/lecturer at Ben-Gurion University and an author of 30 book ranging from engineering to poetry. He is also an ordained clergyman and a former soldier.

The look on both their faces says it all.

President Obama’s demand for an unconditional and immediate cease-fire in the fighting between Israel and Hamas, which would leave the latter with the wherewithal to murder Israeli civilians in the future, is just the most recent example of what can only be considered a conscious and deliberate policy to weaken and to undermine the security of the only Jewish state in the world.

From denying Israel the “bunker-buster” bombs it needs to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, to infantile snubs of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the president of the United States has shown an unswerving, consistent and relentless hostility to Israel that is not only harmful to Israel but to America as well.

Theological fanatics like Hamas will not be kindly disposed to the United States, much less deterred from continuing their genocidal war against Israel, by Obama’s ongoing appeasement, which has been justified and explained away by the president’s ridiculous claim, first made in his speech in Cairo in 2009, to understand Islam because he lived as a youth in a Muslim country, Indonesia.

Every public and semi-public admonishment of Israel, whether by President Obama or by his loquacious secretary of state, John Kerry, only encourages those who seek Israel’s destruction to persist in their evil design: Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and, by seeking to flood Israel with “refugees” too young to have been alive when Israel was created in 1948, the Palestinian Authority.

One may disagree about the reason for the president’s attitude. The most plausible is not that he is secretly Muslim, but rather that he loathes Israel because he loathes America, that for Obama the former is an integral appendage of the latter, no less racist and discriminatory at home and just as imperialist and expansionist abroad. Ironically, the Iranians show they also believe in this connection by building intercontinental missiles to fire at “The Big Satan” (the United States) once “The Little Satan” (Israel) is destroyed.

In light of the multiple dangers Israel faces, even as it is currently dealing, at great cost in human life, with an enemy that seeks the destruction not only of Israel but, as its founding charter makes clear, of all Jews, it is time for American Jews to recognize that the current occupant of the White House means real and lasting harm to the state of the Jewish people and thus to the Jewish people themselves.

If American Jews who support Obama’s positions on domestic issues such as abortion and immigration consider these issues more important than Israel’s survival, then they should continue to support his presidency. But for American Jews who both as Jews and as Americans consider Israel’s survival the foremost moral imperative of our time, and who believe that without Israel Judaism itself will suffer demographic extinction and that America would be even more tempting a target for Muslim terrorists than it was before 9/11, their obligation is clear and inescapable: to do everything they can to pressure President Obama to cease his relentless hostility to Israel and, if that does not work, to seek his removal from office. Impeachment and conviction do not require the commission of crimes. Dereliction of duty is sufficient.

The foreign policy Obama has pursued, of punishing America’s allies, not just Israel but other pro-Western democracies such as Poland and the Czech Republic, and of appeasing America’s enemies, not just Muslim theocracies but also thuggish dictatorships such as Putin’s Russia, is clear evidence of presidential negligence, of failing to do everything necessary to protect the American people. If this is not an impeachable offense, one is hard pressed to say what is.

Jay Bergman is a professor of history at Central Connecticut State University, in New Britain, Conn.

About Me

Russell Wilcox is a retired college professor who spends several months in Florida and several months in Rhode Island each year, and whose interests include boating and sailing, sports, political activism, ballroom dancing and bridge. He has an MBA from Harvard, a Computer Systems CAGS from Bryant and a BS from Northeastern. He has worked in industry for EG&G and Texas Instruments, operated his own business with more than 200 employees, and served as Director of the Computer Information Systems Program for Stonehill College. An Army veteran and private pilot, he is a published author, and is the proud father of four children and the proud grandfather of seven grandchildren and one greatgrandchild. A holder of two patents in microchip connections and a true product of the melting pot, his father is the son of a Yankee farmer, and his mother the first generation daughter of Italian immigrants who retained their culture, but strove mightily to become Americans, sending four sons to fight against Hitler and Mussolini.